Standard test codes for the declaration of vibration emission: a review of research carried out by the Health and Safety Executive

Prepared by the Health and Safety Executive

RR1162 Research Report

© Crown copyright 2020

Prepared 2016 First published 2020

You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any fo rmat or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view the licence visit ww w.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/, write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.

Some images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so can not be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to copyright@hse.gov.uk.

Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a painful and disabling disorder of the blood vessels, nerves and joints,

caused by exposure to hand transmitted vibration, often from using power tools. HAVS is preventable, but once

damage is done, it is irreversible.

The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 require manufacturers to minimise machinery vibration risk and declare vibration emission. British standard test codes can

be used for this declaration. Manufacturers must provide in formation to enable risk from vibration (after minimisation by the manufacturer) to be assessed and e ffectively managed; they should draw attention to any gap between the risk indicated by the declared vibration e mission and the likely actual risk during use.

Th is report gives an overview of HSE research carried out up to 2013 to investigate vibration emission information from stan dard test codes for 31 different power tool categories.

R esults showed that vibration emission data measured according to the latest test codes are useful for identifying l ow or high vibration power tools in some, but not all, cases. Typically, in-use vibration is under-estimated, r endering the data unsuitable for risk assessment.

Employers and users of power tools should seek c orroboration of data they intend to use for risk assessment to assure the data are reliable for estimating hand-arm v ibration exposures.

This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and

Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or

conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not

necessarily reflect HSE policy.

2

Standard tLorem ipsum dest codes ofor tlor sithe de ametclaration of vibration

consectemission

etuer a: a revidipisciew ong f researcelit h car ried out by the Health and Safety Exec utive

Sue Hewitt and Paul Brereton Health and Safety Executive Harpur Hill Buxton Derbyshire SK17 9JN

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the help of all the power tool manufacturers who have provided

machines for our tests and provided advice and training on the use of their machines over the

years. We would like to thank the many organisations that have assisted us with the in-use

measurements of machines. We would also like to thank all our HSE colleagues for their advice

and support. Finally, the lead author would like to thank all colleagues, past and present, who

have worked on the various elements of these projects, for their individual contributions and for

all their hard work and enthusiasm.

4

KEY MESSAGES

Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a painful and disabling disorder of the blood vessels,

nerves and joints, caused by exposure to hand transmitted vibration, often from use of power

tools. HAVS is preventable, but once damage is done, it is irreversible.

The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 require manufacturers to minimise

machinery vibration risk and declare vibration emission. Standard vibration test codes can be

used for this declaration. Manufacturers must provide information to enable risk from hand

transmitted vibration (after minimisation by the manufacturer) to be assessed and effectively

managed and draw attention to any gap between the risk indicated by the declared vibration

emission and the likely actual risk during use.

HSE research on thirty one vibration test codes carried out up until 2013 for a wide range of

power tools has shown that:

• Power tool vibration emission data measured according to the latest standard test codes

can be useful for identification of low or high vibration machines in some instances, but

not in others.

• The standard test codes have been developed as far as possible to reflect risk. However

due to the need to define repeatable and reproducible test conditions, they are not able

to reflect the full range of vibration magnitudes from the machines.

• Declared vibration emission data typically underestimate the in-use vibration and are

not suitable to use for workplace risk assessment.

Although power tool manufacturers have a duty to provide supplementary information on

residual risk when the declared emission value is inadequate, this information is often missing.

When the information is missing, duty holders should seek corroboration of any data they intend

to use for workplace risk assessment of power tools so that hand-arm vibration exposures are

not underestimated. Corroboration might be achieved by, for example, talking to manufacturers,

seeking advice from the Health and Safety Executive website, and checking databases and other

sources of in-use vibration magnitudes. Purchasers considering vibration when choosing

between tools should use manufacturers’ data with caution.

The report provides technical details of interest to standards makers and technical specialists

dealing with hand-arm vibration emission standards.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 (referred to in this report as the Supply

Regulations) require manufacturers to minimise risks from machinery used in the workplace.

The regulations set essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) relating to the design and

construction of machinery; their purpose is to ensure that machinery is safe and is designed and

constructed so that the hazards associated with foreseeable use of the machine are controlled

throughout all phases of the machine's life.

Prolonged exposure to vibration transmitted to the hand can cause painful and disabling

disorders of the blood vessels, nerves and joints. These health effects are referred to as Hand

Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). HAVS is preventable, but once the damage is done, it is

permanent.

The Supply Regulations, and corresponding European legislation, require manufacturers to

minimise vibration risk and declare vibration emission and associated uncertainties in the

instructions and in any literature describing the performance characteristics of equipment.

Information warning about any residual vibration risk must be provided. This might be, for

example, if the declared vibration emission values under-estimate workplace risk under specific

operating conditions. The regulations also require instructions to be provided if specific actions

are required to control vibration risk, such as maintenance or operating methods.

Vibration test codes can be used by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with the

requirements of the Supply Regulations. These should be designed to produce emission data

that enable manufacturers to comply with the regulations and enable authorities to verify that

vibration has been minimised. The same emission data should enable the employer to identify

and then select between high and low vibration risk machines and make an initial vibration risk

assessment for their workers.

Aims

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has carried out a programme of research, working with

manufacturers and developers of international standards to investigate and improve test codes

for vibration emission declaration and thereby improve the quality and usefulness of the

vibration emission data for power tools. This report, prepared in 2016, summarises the work and

the outcomes from the research programme carried out up until 2013. For each of the thirty one

vibration test codes investigated there were three main aims:

1. To assess the standard tests for usability, repeatability and, where possible,

reproducibility.

2. To compare vibration emission values with vibration magnitudes measured under real

operating conditions.

3. To produce information based on the research outcomes, so that HSE can better inform

users and suppliers of machines of the value of vibration emission data in terms of

estimating vibration risk.

To achieve these aims, the vibration emissions of samples of machines were measured

according to the provisions of each vibration test code under investigation. Further tests were

carried out to obtain in-use vibration magnitudes. The investigations allowed comparison of

HSE measured emission data with manufacturers’ declared emission data and both

manufacturers’ and HSE emission data with HSE in-use measurements.

6

Main Findings

HSE research pre 2001 showed that both manufacturers’ declared and HSE measured emission

data could be used to identify high or low vibration machinery. Many of the international

vibration test codes at that time stated that emission data could not be used for workplace risk

assessment.

Following the revision of the standard technique for assessment of vibration exposure in the

workplace in 2001, in the period of time up to 2009, considerable changes were made to

vibration test codes. Investigation of vibration test codes produced since 2009 showed that

vibration emission data were adequate for some, but not all machines, to identify high and low

vibration machines. According to the Supply Regulations, the data should also be suitable for

verifying that vibration risk has been minimised; HSE research showed that this is not always

the case.

The apparent weakening of the test codes’ ability to identify low and high vibration machines

may be due, in some cases, to general improvements in tool design making it less common for

tools to exhibit either extremely high or extremely low vibration. This explanation does not

however apply to all test codes investigated.

The implementation of the Supply Regulations, and changes in associated standards, clarified

that all emission data should be expressed in terms of vibration total values. The relationship

between measured vibration emission for the purpose of declaration, and that experienced by

operators during typical use has been improved since 2001 by making the following changes to

the vibration test codes:

• Changing from single axis to vibration total value measurement

• Introducing more realistic operations

• For some machines, requiring measurement at two hand positions.

Investigating vibration test codes produced after 2009 showed that despite some improvements,

there remains a substantial gap between the risk represented by manufacturers’ declared

emission values compared with the HSE in-use measurements of vibration. Where emission

data are not representative of risk, the Supply Regulations require manufacturers to provide

residual risk information for their power tools.

HSE found that of the test codes published since 2009, some produce vibration emission data

that over-predict vibration risk, some under-predict and a small proportion of the emission data

represent workplace vibration risk. Despite some improvements, the HSE measured emission

data based on vibration magnitudes and associated uncertainties, show that out of fourteen tool

categories investigated since 2009 only four (~29%) produce data representative of risk.

Manufacturers’ declared data showed only two categories (~14%) that represent risk.

Recommendations

Purchasers considering vibration when choosing between tools should use manufacturers’ data

with caution.

Employers and users of power tools should seek corroboration of data they intend to use for risk

assessment to assure the data are reliable for estimating hand-arm vibration exposures.

7

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................. 4

KEY MESSAGES............................................................................................... 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................... 6

CONTENTS........................................................................................................ 8

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 10 1.1 The EU Machinery Directive........................................................................................... 10 1.2 The Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005....................................................... 11 1.3 Measurement of workplace exposures........................................................................... 12 1.4 Standards for declaration of vibration emission ............................................................. 12 1.5 Declaration of vibration emission ................................................................................... 13 1.6 Vibration emission studies at HSE ................................................................................. 14 1.7 Vibration emission studies by other researchers ........................................................... 15

2 GENERAL METHOD............................................................................. 16 2.1 Equipment ...................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Emission tests ................................................................................................................ 17 2.3 In-use measurements..................................................................................................... 17

3 RESULTS.............................................................................................. 19

4 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 22 4.1 Results for test codes pre 2001...................................................................................... 22 4.2 Development of power tools and test codes since 2001................................................ 23 4.3 Documentation and verification of emission data........................................................... 29 4.4 Emission values as an indicator of risk .......................................................................... 29 4.5 Identification of low vibration machines.......................................................................... 46

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ 48

6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 50

ANNEX A ......................................................................................................... 56 Individual results for each tool category ...................................................................................... 56 Angle grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995 [5] ............................................................................... 57 Demolition hammers - BS EN 28662-5:1995 [6] .......................................................................... 57 Road breakers - BS EN 28662-5:1995 [6] .................................................................................... 58 Chipping hammers - BS EN 28662-2:1995 [3] ............................................................................. 58 Rock drills and rotary hammers - BS EN 28662-3:1995 [4] ......................................................... 59 Impact drills - BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995 [7] ................................................................................... 59 Brush cutters – ISO 7916:1989 [62] .............................................................................................. 60 Rammers - BS EN ISO 8662-9:1996 [9]....................................................................................... 60 Die grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 [15] ............................................................................... 61 Impact wrenches - BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 [12].......................................................................... 61 Saws and files - BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 [14]............................................................................ 62 Sanders and Polishers - BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997 [13]................................................................. 62

8

Nibblers and shears - BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 [17] ................................................................... 63 Breakers - BS EN ISO 8662-5:1995 [6] ........................................................................................ 63 Cut off saws – BS EN ISO 1454:1997 [11].................................................................................... 64 Fastener driving tools – ISO 8662-11:1999 [63] ........................................................................... 64 Angle grinders - BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 [24]................................................................................ 65 Reciprocating saws - BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 [22]...................................................................... 65 Hammers - BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 [28] ........................................................................ 66 Lawn mowers - BS EN 836:1997 [10] ........................................................................................... 66 Hedge trimmers - BS EN ISO 10517:2009 [25] ............................................................................ 67 Drills – BS EN ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 [27] ....................................................................... 67 Scaling hammers and needle scalers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 [31]........................................ 68 Percussive drills, hammers & breakers – BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011 [34] .................................. 69 Stone hammers – BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011 [35]....................................................................... 70

ANNEX B ......................................................................................................... 71 Emission data as an indicator of real use risk............................................................................. 71

ANNEX C ......................................................................................................... 73 Emission values as indicators of risk - ratio graphs .................................................................... 73

9

1 INTRODUCTION

In 1989 a European Directive was introduced that, through the associated national legislation,

placed duties on manufacturers to minimise the risk from vibration and declare the vibration

emission values for their products (Machinery Directive 89/392/EEC)[39]. In 2002 a European

Directive on the control of risks from workplace exposures to vibration (Physical Agents

(Vibration) Directive 2002/44/EC)[40] stated that the information supplied by manufacturers may

be used for the assessment of vibration exposure.

Standardised methods for determining the vibration emission of powered hand-held tools have

been under development since the mid to late 1980s. Until the Machinery Directive 89/392/EEC

there was no requirement for declaration of vibration emission and until the Physical Agents

(Vibration) Directive 2002/44/EC, there was no requirement for declarations to represent

workplace vibration magnitudes.

During the development of the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive, the Health and Safety

Executive (HSE) investigated the safety standards for some common machines to assess the

usefulness of vibration emission data. This work highlighted that in most cases, the vibration

emission data could not be used to estimate workplace vibration exposures. Since then, HSE has

carried out a programme of research, working with manufacturers and standards developers to

improve the test procedures for emission declaration and thereby improve the quality and

usefulness of the vibration emission data.

1.1 THE E U MACHINERY D IRECTIVE

The Machinery Directive seeks to eliminate or minimise risks from the use of machinery used in

the workplace by requiring that manufacturers address defined essential health and safety

requirements (EHSRs) relating to the design and construction of machinery. The purpose of the

EHSRs is to ensure that machinery is safe and is designed and constructed so that the hazards

associated with foreseeable use of the machine are controlled throughout all phases of the

machine's life.

The first version of the Machinery Directive was published in 1989 (89/392/EEC)[39] and was

transposed into United Kingdom (UK) legislation by the Supply of Machinery (Safety)

Regulations in 1992[74]. The third and most recent version of the Machinery Directive

(2006/42/EC)[41] included revisions to the requirements for reporting vibration emissions. It was

transposed in to UK legislation by the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008[75],

which came in to force on 29th December 2009. The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations

2008 (referred to in this report as the Supply Regulations), place duties on manufacturers (or

their authorised representatives) to identify the health and safety hazards (for example hand-

transmitted vibration) that are likely to be present when the machinery is used, to assess the

likely risks and if possible, eliminate them. For hand-transmitted vibration, the key requirements

of the Supply Regulations are:

• To reduce the vibration emissions to the lowest level taking account of technical

progress and the availability of means of reducing vibration, in particular at source.

• Where risks cannot be eliminated or sufficiently reduced, to provide safeguards or

information about residual risks and place signs on the machinery to warn of risks that

cannot be reduced in other ways.

10

• To provide, in the instructions accompanying the machine, information on how to

reduce risks, about residual risks and on vibration emissions, including the vibration

total value to which the hand-arm system is subjected together with the associated

uncertainty of measurement.

• To provide in any sales literature describing the performance characteristics of

machinery, the same information on vibration emissions as is contained in the

instructions.

To facilitate the process of vibration emission declaration, the European Committee for

Standardisation (CEN) was mandated by the European Commission to develop standardised

vibration test codes as EN Standards. Once an EN standard has been cited in the Official Journal

of the European Union (OJEU) and has been implemented as a national standard in at least one

Member State, the standard becomes a harmonised standard. Compliance with that standard

provides a presumption of conformity with the EHSRs of the Machinery Directive within the

limits of the scope of that standard.

It is not compulsory to use a test code from a harmonised standard to demonstrate conformity

with the Machinery Directive, but if relevant harmonised standards are not followed,

manufacturers (or importers) are obliged to prove their products conform to the EHSRs.

The purpose of a harmonised standard test code is to provide vibration emission values that are

consistent when repeated within the same test house (i.e. the results are repeatable) and are

consistent when the test is reproduced at another test house (i.e. the results are reproducible).

To achieve a repeatable and reproducible test, some standard tests are based on operations that

are quite different to real use of the machines.

1.2 THE C ONTROL OF VIBRATION AT WORK REGULATIONS 20 05

On 6th July 2002 the European Union published Council Directive 2002/44/EC[40] on the

minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising

from physical agents (vibration). The requirements of this Directive are implemented in Great

Britain as the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005[42].

The aim of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 is to control the risk to workers

from exposure to vibration. The Regulations define duties for employers based on an

assessment of vibration risk which usually requires an estimation of vibration exposure. This

estimation needs to be based on the magnitude of vibration emitted by machinery and

employers are directed to consider any information on vibration provided by the manufacturer

of the machinery. The use of reliable emission and other data from manufacturers can avoid the

time and cost of expensive measurement and, in most cases, should establish whether or not

exposures are likely to present a risk such that specific actions to control the risk are required.

If manufacturers’ declared emission data are to be used to estimate risk, the relationship

between the vibration emission values and the vibration likely to be experienced by the user is a

key concern. If the declared emission value is not a reasonable representation of the in-use

vibration, the daily vibration exposure estimated using the declared emission value may

significantly under- or over-estimate the actual exposure, leading to unsuitable actions by

employers. If the data are unreliable for indicating risk, they are also likely to be unreliable for

the purposes of comparing competing products on the basis of their vibration emissions.

11

1.3 MEASUREMENT OF WORKPLACE E XPOSURES

The earliest standards relating to hand-arm vibration were for evaluation of workplace exposure

to hand-arm vibration: ISO 5349:1986[61] and BS 6842:1987[1]. Both of these standards were

based on measurement of single, dominant axis (or highest axis) vibration value. ISO 5349:1986

was the basis for all international hand-arm vibration measurement standards, such as those for

vibration emission.

In 2001, ISO 5349:1986 was revised as BS EN ISO 5349-1:2001[18] which required triaxial

measurements of vibration and the use of the vibration total value to represent exposure. This

development reflected a growing recognition within the scientific community that single axis

measurements were inadequate for representing the risks associated with some types of

machinery, particularly those which had rotary action. The Physical Agents (Vibration)

Directive (2002/44/EC) references ISO 5349-1:2001 with regard to the assessment of exposure,

indicating the requirement for triaxial measurements when estimating exposure to hand-arm

vibration. The change in requirement for daily vibration exposure assessment to be based on

triaxial rather than single axis measurements was well established by the time the Physical

Agents (Vibration) Directive was published.

1.4 STANDARDS F OR DECLARATION OF VIBRATION EMISSION

1.4.1 Pneumatic powered machines

ISO 8662 part 1 was first published in 1988. It was adopted as a EN Standard in 1993 and

published in the UK as a British Standard, BS EN 28662-1:1993[2]. This standard, which only

applied to pneumatic machines, gave general guidance on how to carry out vibration emission

tests. Further guidance on the production of vibration emission test codes was provided by BS

EN 1033:1996[8]. BS EN 1033 and BS EN ISO 8662-1 were superseded by BS EN ISO

20643:2005[23].

The BS EN ISO (2)8662 series of standards gave emission declaration requirements in parts 2 to

14 for specific categories of pneumatic machine. These standards were published from 1994

onwards and were based on the guidelines in BS EN 28662-1.

BS EN ISO 20643, first published in 2005, gave guidance on production of vibration test codes

and introduced the requirement for triaxial vibration measurements in test codes. Prior to this,

emission test codes such as the BS EN 28662 series for pneumatic tools developed in the 1990s,

were based on single axis measurements in keeping with the first standards for workplace

assessment such as ISO 5349:1986. They also prescribed a single measurement point to

represent the hand location.

BS EN ISO 20643:2005 and all subsequent versions of this standard, specify that the declared

vibration emission value should reflect the upper quartile of the in-use vibration. The upper

quartile is the value in a range of data below which 75% of the range will lie. This guidance has

been followed by the standards committee responsible for development of the BS EN ISO

28927 series of vibration emission test codes, which replace the BS EN ISO 8662 series. The

28927 series has been generalised to apply (in principle) to all tools. The major improvements

to the BS EN ISO 28927 series of standards are that they:

• Require triaxial measurements and declaration of the vibration total value.

• Modify the BS EN ISO 8662 test conditions to give results that are more representative

of real work, in some cases.

12

• Require measurements at all relevant grip points and reporting of the highest vibration

values from all hand positions.

Based on the specification given in BS EN ISO 20643, the BS EN ISO 28927 series of

standards should produce vibration emission values that represent the likely vibration risk from

use of the machine.

1.4.2 Electrically powered machines

The first series of test codes for declaration of vibration emission from electrically powered

machines was the BS EN 50144 series, published in the 1990s. This series was subsequently

revised and published as the BS EN 60745 series. Like the BS EN ISO 28927 series, the

electrical tool standards have been improved. The BS EN 60745 series require triaxial

measurements, specify test conditions that give results more representative of real work in some

cases, and require measurements at relevant grip points and reporting of the highest vibration

values from all hand positions.

BS EN 60745-1 was first published in 2003[21] and it included the generic vibration test code for

electrical machines and performed a similar function to BS EN ISO 20643:2005, setting out the

basic requirements for all machine specific test codes. Further amendments were made to BS

EN 60745-1:2003. Changes were made in March 2007 (following the publication of Machinery

Directive 2006/42/EC), which included the requirement for all parts of the BS EN 60745 series

to obtain emission data from triaxial measurements. There was also a shift towards producing

data intended to reflect typical use in the various revisions of BS EN 60745-1. BS EN 60745

1:2003 specifically stated:

­

“…It is not intended that the values are used for assessment of human exposure to

vibrations…”

This statement was not included in BS EN 60745-1:2009[26]. Although the 2009 version did not

specifically state its intention was to generate declaration values that reflected the upper quartile

of in-use vibration, (which would align it to BS EN ISO 20643:2008[36]) it contained the

following statement:

“…Those operating conditions shall be used that are representative of the highest vibration

values likely to occur at typical and normal use of the machine under test…”

The BS EN 60745 series is now being revised in the BS EN 62841 series. BS EN 62841

1:2015[37] has now been issued; BS EN 60745-1:2009+A11:2010[32] will cease to provide a

presumption of conformity in February 2018. All other parts of BS EN 60745 series are being

replaced by the BS EN 62841 series and will cease to provide a presumption of conformity by

2019. The wording relating to the operating conditions in BS EN 62841-1:2015 is unchanged.

­

At the present time, the emission data generated by both electric and pneumatic machine test

codes should produce data that enable the manufacturer to verify that vibration has been

minimised. It should also enable the end user to identify and then select low vibration risk

machines and make an initial vibration risk assessment for their workers.

1.5 DECLARATION OF VIBRATION EMISSION

The declaration of vibration emission values is standardised under BS EN 12096:1997[16]. This

standard gives the following vibration related definitions:

13

• Measured vibration emission value, a, in m/s² — a value that represents the measured

vibration emission value of a single machine or the mean value of a reasonably large

sample from a batch of machines.

• Uncertainty, K, in m/s² — a value representing the measurement uncertainty of the

measured vibration emission value a, and also, in the case of batches, production

variations of machinery.

• Declared vibration emission value, a+K — the sum of the measured vibration

emission value, a, and its associated uncertainty, K. The sum of a and K indicates the

limit below which the vibration value of an individual machine, and/or a specified large

proportion of the vibration values of a batch of machines, are stated to lie when the

machines are new.

The declaration of both a and K values is specified in all of the revised test codes in the BS EN

60745 series and BS EN 62841 series for electrical machines and the BS EN ISO 28927 series

for hand-held portable power tools. This reflects the requirement in the current version of the

Machinery Directive, to provide both the vibration total value to which the hand-arm system is

subjected (a) and the uncertainty of measurement (K).

1.6 VIBRATION EMISSION STUDIES AT HSE

For a number of years, HSE has been investigating the relationship between the manufacturers’

declared vibration emission, the vibration emission measured by HSE under standard test

conditions, and the vibration, also measured by HSE, during typical use for different categories

of tool. The work started in 1995 with the first project looking at the then newly issued vibration

test code for angle grinders (BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995[5]). The project concluded that the

vibration emission as declared by the manufacturer or as measured according to the standard test

by HSE, related poorly to the data measured on the same machines under conditions of typical

use and that the test code could not reliably discriminate between high and low vibration

machines [51,48]. The subsequent investigations of other test codes in the BS EN ISO 8662 series

also indicated on the whole that vibration emissions did not provide a credible representation of

workplace vibration, although many test codes were found capable of discriminating between

higher and lower vibration machines [48,49,50,51].

This report describes studies carried out by HSE over a 20 year period to investigate the

effectiveness of vibration emission test codes in producing vibration information suitable for

risk assessment. For some machines, data are included from both the earlier versions and the

most up-to-date versions of the vibration test codes. This report, prepared in 2016, summarises

the findings from these HSE studies. Each study looked at test codes for determining the

vibration emission from a particular type of tool. For each test code investigated there were

three main aims:

• To assess the standard tests for usability, repeatability and where possible, for

reproducibility.

• To compare vibration emission values with vibration magnitudes measured under real

operating conditions.

• To produce information based on the research outcomes, so that HSE can better inform

users and suppliers of machines of the value of vibration emission data in terms of

estimating vibration risk.

14

To achieve these aims, the vibration emission of a sample of machines was measured according

to the provisions of the test code under investigation. Where possible, new machines were tested

as supplied by manufacturers. After completion of the HSE laboratory measurements of the

vibration emission, in-use measurements were made using the same machines and transducer

mounting locations in order to compare emission and in-use data.

BS EN ISO 5349 parts 1 and 2[18,19] specify the current method of measuring and assessing

workplace exposure to vibration. In BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001+A1:2015[19] the transducer

mounting locations continue to be defined in the centre of the gripping zone. This is different

from the location that has typically been defined in emission test codes since about 2003, which

tends to be the thumb/finger position. The thumb/finger position has been specified by standards

committees ‘for practical reasons’ according to BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 and because

it is perceived by some to be the point of maximum grip. BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001+A1:2015

acknowledges that this location has been chosen for emission tests, but states that ‘…it is not

invariably suitable for workplace exposure assessment’.

HSE investigated the influence of transducer mounting positions for some power tools. The

thumb/finger location was shown by HSE to give consistently lower vibration magnitudes than

the centre of the gripping zone for some tool types such as angle grinders fitted with standard

side handles [44] and some sanders [53]. For the purposes of comparing emission values and in-use

data, to avoid introducing a systematic error due to location, HSE used the mounting locations

specified in the test code for both emission and in-use measurements.

1.7 VIBRATION EMISSION STUDIES B Y OTHER RESEARCHERS

Other institutions have investigated the relationship between vibration emission and vibration

during typical use of power tools. Rimmel et al 2007[69] carried out many vibration

measurements for a wide range of power tools and concluded that, in general the manufacturers’

declared emission data tended to under-estimate the measured exposure. Also researchers at

NIOSH [38,65,66] carried out similar investigations. The most recent of these papers, McDowell et

al 2012 [66] describes measurements on riveting hammers; laboratory measurements on these

tools were considerably different to those measured in their field study, but that the rank orders

of the tools were fairly consistent.

15

2 GENERAL METHOD

2.1 EQUIPMENT

The vibration measurement technique described here is as used by HSE to investigate all

vibration emission test codes included in the research. Triaxial hand-arm vibration

measurements were made on each tool, at the hand locations defined in the vibration test code,

using three single axis piezoelectric accelerometers bolted to a mounting block. The blocks

were fixed to the tool handle(s) using either a plastic cable tie and tensioning gun system or

cyano-acrylate adhesive. Kennedy 1989[64] showed that both techniques provide a reliable,

repeatable fixing technique that does not have any significant influence on the vibration

measurement. Data from the accelerometers were collected and processed using a real-time

frequency analysis system giving frequency-weighted vibration total values for each

measurement location. Figure 1a shows a breaker set up for emission testing. Figures 1b and 1c

show examples of the configuration of accelerometers on the handles of a power tool. Figure 1d

shows a close-up of the test device for impactive tools known as a dynaload.

Figure 1a A breaker in 60 mm dynaload

Figure 1b Transducers fixed with cyano-acrylate adhesive

Figure 1c Transducers fixed with cable tie

16

Figure 1d Close-up of 60 mm dynaload at HSE

2.2 EMISSION TESTS

The emission test procedures vary from test code to test code, but all of them usually have the

same basic approach to obtaining data. The measurements are made on a new machine. Five

consecutive measurements are made for each of three operators on each tool at each

representative hand location. In the BS EN ISO 60745 series since 2006 and in the BS EN ISO

28927 series since 2009, the representative hand location is defined as the thumb/finger

position1. The overall arithmetic mean, a, is obtained from the mean vibration total values for

the three tool operators. A value for the individual tool deviation, K, is also calculated from the

variability of the measured vibration values and factors relating to the reproducibility of the test

code and the variability of tool. The K value was originally defined in BS EN 12096:1997[16], to

which the BS EN ISO 28927 series of test codes refer. It is also defined separately in BS EN

ISO 60745-1:2009[26] for electrical machines.

2.3 IN-USE M EASUREMENTS

Following the emission tests, in-use measurements were made on the same machines, using the

same accelerometer mounting locations. Operating conditions were chosen to represent typical

use of the tool under test.

For comparison purposes, the data were summarised in terms of the tool manufacturers’

declared vibration emission, the HSE measured vibration emission and the HSE measured in-

use vibration. BS EN ISO 20643 requires that test codes produce values indicative of the upper

quartile of real-world use, therefore in-use data are presented here as upper quartile values. For

1 Note: This is a deviation from the location defined in the 2005 version of BS EN ISO 20643[23]

in order to make the measurement location consistent with that used in the BS EN ISO 60745

series of test codes. This deviation is recognised in the introductions to the BS EN ISO 28927

series of test codes. In 2012, an amendment to BS EN ISO 20643 was produced to address this

discrepancy.

17

each test code investigated, the tools used were anonymised and assigned an alphabetic

identification.

18

3 RESULTS

The full results of the work for each tool HSE studied are given in individual HSE reports. The

tool categories HSE investigated and the corresponding HSE report references are:

1. Grinders (1996)[76,51]

2. Demolition hammers (1998)[77]

3. Road breakers (1998)[77]

4. Chipping hammers (1999)[48]

5. Rock drills and rotary hammers (2000)[50]

6. Impact drills (2000)[49]

7. Brush cutters (2001)[67]

8. Rammers (2001)[72]

9. Die grinders (2003)[60]

10. Impact wrenches (2003)[73]

11. Saws (2003)[52]

12. Nibblers and shears (2006)[70]

13. Sanders and polishers (2006)[53]

14. Breakers (2006)[54]

15. Cut-off saws (2007)[55]

16. Fastener driving tools (2007)[43]

17. Electric angle grinders (2009)[44]

18. Reciprocating saws (2009)[45]

19. Hammers (2010)[56]

20. Lawn mowers (2011)[46]

21. Hedge trimmers (2011)[47]

22. Drills and impact drills (2011)[71]

23. Needle scalers 2012)[57]

24. Chisel scalers 2012)[57]

25. Scabblers (2012)[57]

26. Percussive hammers (In press)[58]

27. Stone hammers (In press)[59]

Individual results obtained for each tool tested by HSE during the course of the research are

shown in Annex A.

Figures 2a and 2b summarise the data from 12 of the first 13 test codes HSE investigated. These

investigations pre-date the implementation of legislation that requires total values to be

measured. Data for rammers are not included in Figure 2 to allow for optimisation of the y-axis

scale because rammers have extremely high vibration magnitudes compared with other tools

(see Annex A). Brush cutters were studied by HSE as part of a different programme of work.

The available data have been included, i.e. manufacturers’ emission data and in-use data, but no

HSE measured emission data.

For this summary report, calculation of the upper quartile of in-use vibration for each tool has

been made using the ‘quartile.exc’ function in Excel, which is regarded as providing a better

representation of the quartile values, than the function available in excel prior to this and used in

the earlier research. This means that the upper quartiles reported here tend to be slightly higher

than those in some of the references and Annex A, where the calculation of the upper quartile

predates the use of this function in Excel.

19

Figure 2a Emission and in-use vibration for grinders, demolition hammers, road breakers, chipping hammers and rock drills and rotary hammers

20

Figure 2b Emission and in-use vibration for impact drills, brush cutters, die grinders, impact wrenches, saws, nibblers and shears and sanders and polishers

21

4 DISCUSSION

The review of studies of hand-arm vibration emission declaration over a period from the mid

1990s to the present day must take into account the changes that occurred during that period in

the underpinning standards, EU Directives and associated legislation. A key change was the

introduction of ISO 5349-1:2001[18]. This brought about the requirements to declare vibration

total values rather than single axis values and to consider both hand positions. Another

important change made later was the introduction of BS EN ISO 20643:2005[23], which

emphasised the need for test codes to produce declaration values which are indicative of real

use.

­

In this discussion, a distinction is made between results from standard test codes based on the

pre 2001 version of ISO 5349 and those developed since ISO 5349-1:2001 was published. It

should be noted that changes to test codes occurred gradually over a period of several years

following the introduction of ISO 5349-1:2001.

4.1 RESULTS FOR TEST CODES PRE 20 01

Figures 2a and 2b show that vibration emission values measured according to the early test

codes, such as the BS EN ISO 8662 series and the BS EN 50144 series dated 1995 to 1999,

whether measured by manufacturers or by HSE, did not, generally reflect the vibration that

operators would be exposed to under conditions of typical use. These figures show (with a few

exceptions) that the emission values tend to be at, or sometimes below, the bottom of the range

of in-use values. The main reasons for this include:

• Early test codes measured single axis values, whereas BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001[19]

required measurement of the vibration total value, which is the root-sum-of-squares of

all three orthogonal axes. When test codes specified single axis measurements they did

not always capture the direction of highest vibration, particularly for rotary machines

where the vibration tends not to have a single dominant axis.

• Some test codes only specified measurements at the hand position on the main handle

and ignored the support hand location, which was often the location of much higher

vibration magnitude.

Although the vibration emission magnitudes measured did not reflect the upper quartile in-use

vibration, early results did show that, in general, the emission values could be useful for

identifying which machines would be high vibration under conditions of typical use. The profile

of both the manufacturers’ and HSE measured emission test values tends to follow the profile

for the upper quartile of in-use data, although at lower magnitudes. The emission values also

give an indication of the state-of-the-art, in that they could be used to identify equipment with

much higher or lower vibration in comparison with similar machines. Those machines that

appeared to be outliers in terms of emission values also tended to be outliers in terms of in-use

values. It is worth noting that there was a wide range in vibration emissions between competing

tools at this time, which helped to make identification of high and low vibration tools

achievable.

Identification of the failings of the early vibration emission test was raised with the European

Committee for Standardisation (CEN). Following this, CEN took action to prioritise revision of

the test codes.

22

4.2 DEVELOPMENT OF POWER TOOLS AND TEST CODES SINCE 20 01

HSE has data for a number of different tools that allow a comparison between early and the

more recent versions of vibration test codes. These comparisons are shown in Figures 3 to 6.

The data were compared to investigate the extent to which changes in the test codes have

improved the likelihood that the emission value will reflect the upper quartile of in-use vibration

total value.

Figure 3 shows a detailed comparison of the results from the rock drills and rotary hammers

work of 2000[50] and the work on electric rotary hammers from 2010[56]. In 2000, the test codes

for pneumatic (BS EN 28662-3:1995[4]) and electric (BS EN 50144-2-6:2001[20]) rock drills and

rotary hammers were investigated. Both of these test codes specified the same method for

measuring vibration. They differed slightly in the way the vibration data were treated to derive

the mean a emission value. In 2010 only the newer electrical tool test code BS EN 60745

1:2009 was investigated. In Figure 3 the masses and power sources of the machines tested are

noted on the x-axis.

­

Figure 3 shows that the upper quartile in-use values (blue cross) for rock drills and rotary

hammers range from approximately 10 to 25 m/s² based on measurements made in accordance

with the test codes available in 2000 and 2010. The data also show that ranges of in-use

vibration were wider for tools tested in the 2010 than in 2000. The HSE measured emission data

(green triangle) are a better reflection of the in-use data in the 2010 research than the

manufacturers’ declared emission values. As the test code for these tools has always required

testing while drilling into concrete of a particular specification, the improvements in prediction

of the in-use values are most likely due to the conversion from single axis to total values and the

improved specification of measurement positions.

Manufacturers’ data provided with some of the rock drills and rotary hammers tested in 2012

were lower than the in-use data, with some big differences observed. This may reflect a delay

in conversion to total values on the part of some of the manufacturers. Although the HSE

research was published in 2010, machines were obtained for testing in 2007 and often the

handbook information was dated 2005 and therefore may reasonably be expected to be single

axis data. Handbooks should specify the operating conditions and measurement methods used.

This information can be provided by dated reference to the standard and part number used for

the declaration. In practice, information on the test code used (and its date) was rarely given, so

it was difficult to determine how any individual declaration value had been obtained.

23

Figure 3 Comparison of rotary hammers’ vibration data from 2000 [24] with that from 2010 [44]

24

Figure 4 Comparison of angle grinders’ vibration data from 1996 (electric and pneumatic) with that from 2009 (electric only) 25

Figure 5 Comparison of breakers’ vibration data from 1998 with that from 2006

26

Figure 6 Comparison of chipping hammers and demolition hammers’ vibration data from 1999 with that from 2015 27

Figure 4 is a comparison of data for angle grinders from 1996[51] and 2009[44]. It shows, with the

exception of one machine, that the typical range of in-use upper quartile values (indicated by a

blue cross) was 4 to 10 m/s² in 1996, compared with 6 to 10 m/s² in 2009. The improved

agreement shown in Figure 4 between HSE emission test and in-use data indicate the benefits of

moving from single axis to triaxial (vibration total value) measurements and the revised and

more precise specification of measurement positions. The changes to the vibration test code for

electric angle grinders in BS EN ISO 60745-2-3:2007[29] also included a modification to the

aluminium test wheel to have a depressed centre. This change caused a noticeable increase in

the measured magnitude of vibration in the HSE data compared with the flat wheel specified in

the 1995 version of the test code [5]. However, the data in Figure 4 show that the use of vibration

total value (solid green triangle) in place of single axis values (outline of black diamond) is the

most important factor in achieving an emission value that reflects the upper quartile of in-use

data for angle grinders. Both values were determined during the same measurements.

Figure 5 shows a comparison of the data HSE obtained for breakers in 1998[77] and 2006[54]. The

emission test from which both sets of data were obtained, used a steel ball energy absorber or

dynaload. The dynaload is an artificial test device, which is commonly used in vibration

emission tests for tools that have impactive action, such as road breakers. An example of a

dynaload can be seen in Figure 1d. When HSE tested breakers in both 1998 and 2006, the

current version of the test code was BS EN 28662-2:1995 [3] and most manufacturers provided

single axis emission data. Only the 32 kg breaker tested in 2006 was supplied with triaxial

emission data. Figure 5 shows that in 1998, most of the manufacturers’ emission data were near

the bottom or below the range of in-use vibration. The HSE measured emission data were closer

to the upper quartile than the manufacturers’ data for some breakers, but were still below the

upper quartile of in-use vibration. The HSE measured emission total values obtained in 2006

were closer to the upper quartile in-use vibration, but only reached or exceeded it for one of the

machines.

Figure 6 shows a comparison of the data for chipping hammers obtained in 1999[48], pick

hammers obtained in 1998[77], and chipping and pick hammers obtained in 2015[58]. The

emission test for all these tools used the dynaload. In 1998 and 1999 the manufacturers’ data

were single all axis emission values. A mixture of emission data was provided with the tools

tested by HSE in 2015:

• The small pneumatic hammers and chipping hammers were provided with single axis

emission data, although the new harmonised test code introduced in 2010 required

triaxial measurements.

• The demolition hammers were provided with total values.

• No vibration emission information was provided with the 1.6 kg pneumatic hammer.

The HSE data reported in 1998 and 1999 were single axis emission values. Vibration total

values were reported in the 2015 study. All the in-use values in Figure 6 are vibration total

values.

The ranges of in-use values for most of the tools HSE tested in 2015 were very wide, being at

least 20 m/s² for four of the six tools tested. This wide range highlights the variability of the in-

use vibration for tools of this type. The HSE measured emission values are consistently at the

bottom or below the range of in-use vibration. The manufacturers’ declared emission values and

the HSE measured emission values shown in Figure 6 are, in almost all cases, below the upper

quartile of in-use vibration, regardless of whether they were single axis (1998 and 1999) or

28

total value emission data (2015). The reason vibration emission data do not represent in-use

values for chipping and pick hammers is likely to be the continuing use of the dynaload for

measurement of emission data. The dynaload does not produce vibration emission data that

represents the upper quartile of in-use measurements for these impactive tools.

4.3 DOCUMENTATION AND VERIFICATION OF EMISSION DATA

In 2009 the Supply Regulations, which implemented the requirements of the Machinery

Directive 2006/42/EC[41], required triaxial vibration measurements. Consideration of the test

codes investigated since 2009 shows no obvious improvement in the ability of manufacturers’

data to predict vibration risk. However, manufacturers’ data for the tools tested at that time may

have been produced according to superseded test codes. The date of the test code used by

manufacturers was not always easy to establish. HSE observed that manufacturers did not

typically report the full details of the test code used (including the standard part number and

date) with the vibration emission values, even though the Supply Regulations require

manufacturers to provide details of operating conditions during measurements and measurement

method. Consequently, users cannot assume that the declared emission value has been

determined with the latest version of the test code. Due to lack of clarity of the precise date and

part number of the test code, it has been difficult, in some instances, for HSE to be certain

whether data presented is single axis or vibration total value.

All vibration declarations made after December 2009 should be based on triaxial measurements.

Instruction manuals supplied with tools should include details of the operating conditions during

measurements and the measurement methods used. This can be achieved by referencing an

appropriate harmonised vibration test code, including the relevant part number and date. HSE

research since 2009 showed that there were very few examples of tools for which direct

comparisons could be made between HSE measured and manufacturers’ declared emission data.

Manufacturers’ declared emission data and HSE measured emission data were compared for

each test code investigated for verification according to BS EN 12096:1997[16]. Discussion of

the findings typically requires details of the declaration and the specific test method and

therefore is beyond the scope of this summary report. The individual research reports contain

details of the comparisons made and the outcomes. For the test codes investigated since 2009,

out of a total of 88 possible comparisons, there were 45 positive verifications, just over 50%.

4.4 EMISSION VALUES AS AN INDICATOR OF RISK

4.4.1 Review of all data

One of the requirements of the Supply Regulations is that the manufacturer should report the

vibration risk. The principal indicator of risk is the declaration value and if it reflects in-use

vibration magnitudes, then the declaration value may be regarded as an adequate indicator of the

vibration risk. BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 [36] and previous versions since 2005, requires

that the emission value should represent the upper quartile of in-use vibration magnitudes.

Fulfilment of this requirement should increase the chance of manufacturers’ emission

declarations fulfilling the requirement of the Supply Regulations to report vibration risk.

The results from the thirty-one test codes HSE investigated are summarised in Table 1 to show

the ability of emission data to reflect in-use vibration risk. The data in Table 1 are also

displayed in bar charts in Annex B. The table shows the percentage of tools tested for which the

HSE measured emission value and the manufacturers’ declared vibration emission represents

the upper quartile of in-use vibration. The data in Table 1 are divided into two parts, dependent

29

upon whether the HSE emission data used for the comparison are single axis or vibration total

value.

Table 1 Summary of results

Power tool category Test code(s) No. of

tools

tested

% cases for

which HSE

emission

reflects or

exceeds in-use

upper quartile

% cases for

which

manufacturer’s

emission

reflects or

exceeds in-use

upper quartile

a a+K a a+K

HSE emission tests are single axis

Electric and pneumatic

grinders

BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995 and

BS EN 50144-2-3:1995

10 0 20 0 20

Demolition hammers BS EN 28662-5:1995 5 20 20 20 60

Road breakers BS EN 28662-5:1995 11 9 27 9 18

Chipping hammers BS EN 28662-2:1995 12 8 8 0 17

Rock drills and rotary

hammers

BS EN 28662-3:1995

BS EN 50144-2-6:1997

7 0 0 0 43

Impact drills BS EN 50144-2-1:1995

BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995

7 0 14 0 43

Brush cutters ISO 7916:1989 6 N/A N/A 17 67

Pneumatic rammers BS EN ISO 8662-9:1997 6 67 100 50 83

Electric rammers BS EN 50144-2-6:1997 2 0 50 50 50

Die grinders BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 7 0 0 0 0

Impact wrenches BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 7 14 29 14 14

Saws and files BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 6 50 67 17 50

Breakers BS EN 28662-5:1995 5 0 40 0 20

Sanders and polishers

(pneumatic)

BS EN 60745-2-4:2003 10 0 0 10 20

Sanders and polishers

(electric)

BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997 3 33 100 0 0

Nibblers and shears BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 and

BS EN ISO 60745-2-8:2003

7 14 14 0 0

Cut-off saws BS EN ISO 1454:1997 3 33 33 0 67

Fastener driving tools ISO 8662-11:1999 11 18 18 36 100

HSE emission tests are total values

Angle grinders BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 5 60 80 0 0

Reciprocating saws BS EN 60745-2­

11:2003+A11:2007

4 0 25 0 0

Hammers (in dynaload) BS EN 60745-2-6:2003

+A2:2009

20 45 65 0 25

Hammers (in concrete) 13** 50 83 15 23

Lawn mowers BS EN 836:1997 4 25 50 25 25

Hedge trimmers BS EN ISO 10517:2009 4 100 100 0 100

30

Power tool category Test code(s) No. of

tools

tested

% cases for

which HSE

emission

reflects or

exceeds in-use

upper quartile

% cases for

which

manufacturer’s

emission

reflects or

exceeds in-use

upper quartile

a a+K a a+K

Drills, impact in concrete BS EN 60745-2-1:2003

+A1:2009

5 80 100 40 80

Drills, non-impact in

metal

5 40 60 80 80

Needle scalers BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 9 11 33 22 33

Chisel scalers 6 17 17 0 0

Scabblers 4 75 100 50 50

Percussive hammers (in

dynaload)

BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011 8 0 25 25 25

Percussive hammers (in

concrete)

1 100 100 100 100

Stone hammers BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011 4 25 25 25 75

**Only 12 tools were tested

The a emission value is the value expected to reflect the upper quartile in-use vibration

according to in BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A12:2012. The K value represents the uncertainty of

the emission test. The a+K value is used to verify the declared vibration emission values stated

by the manufacturer according to BS EN 12096. To verify a declaration the verifier’s measured

a value should be below the declarer’s a+K value2. It is also reasonable to expect that in most

cases the in-use vibration would be below the a+K value if the standard test achieves the

objective to represent the upper quartile of in-use vibration magnitudes in BS EN ISO

20643:2008+A12:2012. The data presented in Table 1 and Annex B show that frequently this is

not the case. Despite improvements made to the vibration test codes, of the fourteen tool

categories (covered by nine test codes) investigated by HSE since 2009 only four categories

(~29%) produce data representative of vibration risk when HSE’s measured a+K data are

considered. Only two categories (~14%) of tools produce vibration emission data that represent

risk when manufacturers’ declared a+K data are considered. These overall findings lead to the

conclusion that emission data may need to be supplemented with additional information to

enable operation, adjustment and maintenance without putting persons at risk from vibration.

The relationships between emission values and the upper quartiles of the in-use values are

shown in Figures 7 to 14. These figures show data determined using the test codes investigated

since 2009. In the figures, the a emission values are plotted on the y-axis with the vertical error

bars indicating the K value. The upper quartile of in-use values for the same machines are

plotted on the x-axis with the error bars indicating the upper and lower bounds of the 95%

confidence interval. Confidence intervals were estimated using the binomial method. This

statistical analysis was carried out using Stata/MP 14.1 for Windows. The position of the data

points in Figures 7 to 14 in relation to the reference line, shown in each figure as a bold

diagonal line, indicates the following:

2 Details of this comparison for each tool type and descriptions of the findings are contained in the individual

references, but are beyond the scope of this report.

31

• If the a emission value and the upper quartile value are the same, the points will lie on

the 45 degree reference line.

• If the a emission is greater than the upper quartile in-use value, the data points will be

above the reference line.

• If the a emission value is lower than the upper quartile, the points will lie below the

reference line.

The data have been plotted for both manufacturers’ declared emission values (red data points)

and for HSE measured emission values (green data points). Where data points frequently

overlie, data have been presented in two graphs, the graph on the right representing the

comparison for manufacturers’ declared emission values and the graph on the left representing

the comparison for HSE measured emission values. Each figure shows tools covered by the

same test code, but which may have different applications.

The data presented in Figures 7 to 15 have also been plotted as the ratio of the a emission values

to upper quartile of in-use vibration in the figures in Annex C to aid interpretation of the data.

32

Figure 7a and 7b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for hammers

33

Figure 8a and 8b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for percussive hammers

34

Figure 9 Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for stone hammers

35

Figure 10a and 10b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for rotary hammers

36

Figure 11a and 11b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for reciprocating saws

37

Figure 12 Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for lawn mowers

38

Figure 13 Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for hedge trimmers

39

Figure 14a and 14b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for drills in concrete and metal

40

Figure 15a. Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for needle scalers

41

Figure 15b Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for chisel scalers

42

Figure 15c Emission vs upper quartile in-use vibration data for scabblers

43

4.4.2 Emission tests on hammers using a dynaload

Figure 7 shows the manufacturers’ a emission values (red markers) and the HSE a emission

values (green markers) plotted against the upper quartile in-use vibration for electric hammers

tested in the dynaload in 2010. Figure 7a shows that none of the manufacturers’ a emission

values reached the upper quartile of in-use values. Taking account of the K value and the 95%

confidence interval for the upper quartile, as shown by the vertical and horizontal error bars

respectively, the manufacturers’ data achieved the upper quartile for six of the twenty machines

tested (30%).

In contrast to the manufacturers’ data, the higher a emission values determined by HSE, shown

in Figure 7b, tended to exceed the measured upper quartile in-use vibration magnitudes. The

HSE data show that the emission test is not adequate for representing the in-use vibration of all

the hammers covered by BS EN 60745-2-6:2010 [33]. The hammers test code both over- and

under-estimates the in-use vibration. Any changes aimed at improving the emission values for

hammers that have lower measured emissions, which under-estimate risk, might result in

emission values that considerably over-estimate the risk for other tools. The challenge of

developing a vibration test code capable of producing reliable information for all machines in a

category appears to be unachievable using the current approach for hammers.

The absolute values of the HSE measured emissions and upper quartile in-use vibration for

electric hammers can also be seen in Figure 7b. The HSE emission values are in the range ~3 to

27 m/s² whereas the upper quartile in-use vibration covers a much narrower range from ~10 to

20 m/s². This suggests that the emission test using the dynaload may be sensitive to differences

in the vibration performance of the tool, which are not significant in normal use.

The data in Figure 8a for pneumatic hammers shows that manufacturers’ emission data,

determined from tests using the dynaload, mostly under-estimated in-use vibration. Only one of

the HSE measured emission values in Figure 8b reached the upper quartile of in-use vibration.

For six of the eight tools tested by HSE, the ratio of a emission to upper quartile in-use vibration

was 0.4 or less (as shown in Annex C, Figure C2b), indicating that the emission value fell short

of the upper quartile in-use vibration by around 60%.

Figure 9 shows the relationship between emission and in-use data for four stone hammers. One

of the tools was not supplied with emission data. For two of the other three, it was not clear how

the emission data had been measured. It was therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the

usefulness of the manufacturers’ data for stone hammers. HSE emission data were determined

in accordance with the current version of the vibration test code for stone hammers. Previous

versions had used a dynaload whereas in the current version the stone hammer is used to carve

stone. Figure 9 shows that HSE emission data were no more successful than the manufacturers’

data at reflecting the upper quartile of in-use values, despite use of real use operating conditions.

The HSE interpretation and application of vibration test codes using the dynaload has resulted

in emission values that provide a better indication of the vibration risk than the manufacturers’

data, as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. The large differences between the emission values

determined by manufacturers and by HSE have not been explained, although they may be due to

different interpretation or application of the standard test.

44

4.4.3 Emission tests on rotary hammers

Figures 10a and 10b show the a emission plotted against the upper quartile in-use vibration for

rotary hammers tested while drilling into concrete. For this tool category and test method, the

manufacturers’ a emission data, shown in Figure 10a, only reached the in-use upper quartilefor

two of the twelve tools (~17%). However, in Figure 10b, the HSE a emission data for six of the

twelve tools (50%) reached or exceeded the upper quartile and the emission values for another

two tools were within 4%. Of the remaining four rotary hammers, the HSE a emission value

fell short of the upper quartile in-use value by less than 20 % (Annex C, Figure C3b).

Of the twelve tools tested at HSE as rotary hammers, drilling in to concrete, ten tools also had

hammer only action and were also tested as hammers in the dynaload (data shown in Figure 7b).

When tested as rotary hammers the emission test produced emission values that were

representative of risk. When the same tools were tested in the dynaload, the test did not produce

values that represented risk. This indicates that, for this tool type, if the test is carried out during

actual use of the tool, it is possible for the emission data to represent the upper quartile of in-use

vibration.

Manufacturers’ data for rotary hammers obtained according to the latest test code did not

represent vibration risk, whereas the HSE emission data also determined using the new test code

produced data that closely represented vibration risk. No explanation has been found for this

anomaly. It is possible that the use of HSE measurement instrumentation and techniques, for

both emission tests and in-use measurements, may tend to reduce sources of variability between

HSE data that may exist between HSE’s and those of manufacturers. However, the full reasons

for inconsistency between HSE measured emission data and manufacturers’ data for some tool

categories are not clear.

4.4.4 Emission tests for other tool categories

Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14 show the a emission plotted against the upper quartile in-use vibration

for reciprocating saws, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers, and drills. The data in these figures show

that manufacturers’ emission values generally do not reflect the upper quartile of in-use

vibration. The HSE measured emission provided a better representation, particularly for hedge

trimmers and drills in concrete, with a small number of exceptions. The emission test procedure

for drills involves drilling into concrete and/or metal. The data in Figure 14 may suggest that

realistic operating conditions specified in a emission test code will produce emission values that

are representative of real use vibration magnitudes. However, it is not always the case that a test

code based on a realistic work operation will produce better data than a test using an artificial

test operation. For example, hedge trimmers are tested when free running and yet all of the HSE

emission data, shown in Figure 13, were representative of risk. Lawn mowers are tested while

stationary and not cutting grass, shown in Figure 12. Despite the artificial test conditions, two of

the four HSE measured emission values reached, or almost reached, the real use upper quartile

values. The test for reciprocating saws, on the other hand, is based on realistic operation, yet

none of the a emission values shown in Figure 11b reached the upper quartile in-use vibration.

Figures 15a, 15b and 15c show the a emission data plotted against the in-use upper quartile for

needle scalers, chisel scalers and scabblers. Five of the six tools tested as chisel scalers, had dual

function and could also be used as needle scalers. The current test for these tools, BS EN ISO

28927-9:2009 [31] is based on a realistic operation, however most of the manufacturers’ data had

been measured according to the previous version of the test code using a dynaload. One tool

was not supplied with any vibration emission information. The manufacturers’ emission data for

45

needle and chisel scalers were generally less than 60% of the upper quartile in-use values (as

shown in Figure C5a, Annex C).

The in-use vibration data for some of the tools, for example, one reciprocating saw in Figure

11a and 11b and one chisel scaler in Figure 15b, show a very large spread as indicated by the

long confidence lines. When there are big differences in the measured in-use vibration for some

machines in a class, due to external influencing factors, it increases the challenge for the

emission value to reflect the upper quartile of in-use vibration. For some test codes, such as

needle scalers and chisel scalers, it was clear that most manufacturers were testing according to

the old vibration test code and this clearly influenced the outcome of the comparisons. However

one needle scaler manufacturer had declared emission values for two needle scalers according to

the latest version of the test code. Data from these two tools can be seen in the bottom left of

Figures 15a and 15b for both manufacturers’ and HSE emission data, showing two clear

examples of low-vibration needle scalers. In this case, the manufacturer’s declared emission,

HSE measured emission and in-use vibration values all agree. This implies that, for these tools

at least, it is possible to create a reproducible test code that produces emission data

representative of vibration risk.

The HSE measured emission values for six of the nine needle scalers tested were at or within 20

% of the upper quartile in-use value (as shown in Figure C5b, Annex C). Testing the tools as

chisel scalers did not produce emission data that represented in-use risk so successfully. This

may have been due to a literal interpretation of the test procedure, operating the chisel

perpendicular to the work surface, which adversely affected the emission test results.

Subsequent discussion with the standard’s authors suggests that HSE’s interpretation of the

angle of operation was not what had been intended. The HSE measured emission data obtained

for scabblers provided an adequate representation of in-use risk as shown in Figure 15c.

The research described in this summary report has shown that despite improvements, the use of

manufacturers’ data for risk assessment may result in an under-estimate of vibration risk. If

manufacturers do not provide supplementary information to help users carry out a risk

assessment, employers will need to find an alternative source of information on in-use vibration

magnitudes. HSE is aiming to make in-use vibration data available, as for example in the recent

publication by Pitts and Brereton[68], to help employers assess and manage vibration risk

effectively. Comparing data from at least two sources and seeking an explanation of any

inconsistent vibration magnitudes can increase your confidence in the quality or relevance of

available vibration magnitude information. Vibration magnitudes can be higher or lower than

the values indicated and you should make allowance for this when estimating vibration risk.

For example, if your estimated exposures are approaching the exposure action value you should

assume that the exposure action value is likely to be exceeded.

4.5 IDENTIFICATION OF LOW VIBRATION MACHINES

Research carried out by HSE before 2001 suggested that vibration emission data could be used

to identify low and high vibration tools and therefore was suitable to inform purchasing

decisions. Manufacturers’ declared vibration emission values should now include both a and K

values. The K value gives an indication of the uncertainty in the a value. The K value can be

added to the a emission value when potential purchasers compare like tools within a class. HSE

Guidance[42] which was based on the early HSE research, says that the difference between two

tools is not considered significant if it is smaller than one of the quoted K values.

The HSE measured emission values determined since 2009 (see Annex A) sometimes follow the

profile of the upper quartile of in-use vibration, for example in the case of angle grinders and

46

scabblers. At other times the HSE emission values follow the profile, although at a lower level,

for example in the case of reciprocating saws and needle scalers. For some tool categories, for

example chisel scalers, the data was scattered and suggested there was no relationship between

the HSE emission values and the upper quartile in-use values. A comparison of HSE and

manufacturers’ emission data showed that, with a few exceptions such as chisel scalers, the

manufacturers’ emission data followed a similar trend to the HSE emission data, although

usually at a lower level. These results suggest that for some tool categories, purchasers may be

able to use the emission data determined using vibration test codes after 2009 to compare

competing tools in a class and make informed choices about the vibration risk for potential

purchases, but for other categories, they may not.

In the recent research carried out by HSE, some of the test codes investigated covered more than

one type of tool and sample sizes were limited and typically too small to allow specific

recommendations to be made. HSE research suggests that vibration test codes pre 2001

produced emission data that could identify low and high vibration machines more successfully

than more recent test codes. Initial views were that this finding was due to a general

improvement in tool design, making it less common for tools to exhibit either extremely high or

extremely low vibration. However, the data in Figures 3 to 6 do not support this, as the typical

in-use vibration magnitudes are not reduced.

BS EN 60745-2-6:2010[33], which applies to electric hammers, is an example of a test code that

both over- and under-estimates the in-use vibration depending on what class of tool is tested.

HSE tested a large sample of hammers, but they were split into several subcategories due to the

different masses of the tools. This made it difficult to draw conclusions about the ability of the

test to identify low or high vibration tools. The range of HSE measured emission values for

hammers tested in the dynaload (seen in Figure 7b) was much greater than the range of in-use

values suggesting that the emission test results were influenced by differences that did not

persist during the in-use measurements. Any changes aimed at improving the test code to give a

better outcome for tools that have lower measured emissions, and which under-estimate

vibration risk, might cause the same test to considerably over-estimate the risk for other tools

also covered by the test code. It may be that the challenge of producing an adequate test for all

machines in a category is not always achievable.

The use of artificial test methods, such as using a dynaload, appears to be responsible for lack of

successful risk representation for many tools within the hammers category, both electric and

pneumatic. However, it is not always the case that an artificial test causes under-estimates of the

in-use vibration, as shown for example in the free-running test for hedge trimmers. Conversely

tests that are based on real use are not necessarily guaranteed to reflect risk, as shown in the

case of reciprocating saws.

47

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 requires:

• Minimisation of vibration through design and construction.

• Declaration of the vibration emission and its uncertainty in the instructions and in

literature describing the performance of equipment.

• Information warning about any residual vibration risk.

• Instructions to be provided if there are specific actions required to control vibration risk

such as maintenance or operating methods.

Compliance with all the vibration requirements of the Supply Regulations using the latest

versions of emission test codes should provide the user with sufficient and suitable vibration

information to make informed choices about potential purchases. It should also allow them to

carry out an initial risk assessment to estimate the extent of the vibration risk from use of the

machine, such that they can plan for use of the machine without risk from vibration.

HSE research pre 2001 showed that manufacturers’ declared emission data could be used to

identify high or low vibration machinery, which would help users to purchase low vibration

tools. Many harmonised standards at that time stated that emission data could not be used for

risk assessment.

Vibration test codes have changed since 2001. They now require total vibration values rather

than single axis values and for some tools more realistic operations and measurements at two

hand positions. These changes have improved the potential for emission data to predict

vibration risk and this is reflected in the HSE emission data which are no longer typically below

the range of in-use vibration values as was the case for pre 2001 test codes.

The vibration declarations obtained according to test codes after 2009 should be vibration total

values. HSE research on test codes produced since 2009 showed that while some of these test

codes may be able to identify low and high vibration machines, others may not.

Some test codes provide emission values that reflect vibration risk while others do not. Some

test codes provide emission values that allow tools to be correctly ranked according to in-use

vibration risk while others do not. The data presented here also suggest that the challenge of

developing a test code capable of producing reliable information for all machines in a class is

unachievable for some tool types. These findings mean that it is not possible to provide generic

guidance on the use of vibration emission data for the purpose of assessing and managing

vibration risk.

The data from the HSE research show that for many tools a substantial gap remains between the

vibration emission values determined using an appropriate test codes and the upper quartile of

the vibration magnitudes measured during typical use. As a consequence, manufacturers should

consider what residual risk information they need to provide for power tool users to ensure that

work can be planned so that will be without risk from vibration. Manufacturers have a duty to

provide supplementary information where necessary. This information must be sufficient to

alert the user of the gap between the risk as indicated by the declared emission values and the

likely risk during real use.

48

In the absence of residual risk information, manufacturers’ data should be supplemented with

other available data on the vibration from use of tools under typical operating conditions. This

might be achieved by, for example, talking to manufacturers, seeking advice from the HSE

website and checking databases and other sources of real use vibration magnitudes.

HSE has published tables of information that can be used to plan for use of power tools without

vibration risk. Comparing data from at least two sources and seeking an explanation of any

inconsistent vibration magnitudes can increase confidence in the quality or relevance of

available vibration magnitude information. Vibration magnitudes can be higher or lower than

the values indicated and allowance should be made for this when estimating vibration risk.

49

6 REFERENCES

1. British Standards Institution. BS 6842:1987 Guide to measurement and evaluation of

human exposure to vibration transmitted to the hand. London: British Standards

Institution.

2. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-1:1993. Hand-held portable power tools –

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. London: British Standards Institution.

3. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-2:1995. Hand-held portable power tools –

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Pavement breakers and hammers for

construction work. London: British Standards Institution.

4. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-3:1995 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Rock drills and rotary hammers. London:

British Standards Institution.

5. British Standards Institution BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995 Hand-held portable power tools –

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Part 4. Grinders. London: British Standards

Institution.

6. British Standards Institution. BS EN 28662-5:1995 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Pavement breakers and hammers for

construction work. London: British Standards Institution.

7. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Impact drills. London: British Standards.

8. British Standards Institution. BS EN 1033:1996 Hand-arm vibration – Laboratory

measurement of vibration at the grip surface of hand-guided machinery – General.

London: British Standards Institution.

9. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-9:1996. Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Rammers. London: British Standards

Institution.

10. British Standards Institution. BS EN 836:1997 Garden equipment. Powered lawnmowers.

Safety. London: British Standards Institution.

11. British Standards Institution. BS EN 1454:1997 Portable, hand-held, internal combustion

cutting-off machines. Safety. London: British Standards Institution.

12. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Wrenches, screwdrivers and nut runners with

impact, impulse or ratchet action. London: British Standards Institution.

13. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Polishers and rotary, orbital and random orbital

sanders. London: British Standards Institution.

50

14. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Saws and files with reciprocating action and

saws with rotating or oscillating action. London: British Standards Institution.

15. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Die grinders. London: British Standards

Institution.

16. British Standards Institution. BS EN 12096:1997 Mechanical vibration - Declaration and

verification of vibration emission values. London: British Standards Institution.

17. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 Hand-held portable power tools.

Measurement of vibrations at the handle. Nibblers and shears. London: British Standards

Institution.

18. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 5349-1:2001 Mechanical vibration - Guidelines

for the measurement and assessment of human exposure to hand-transmitted vibration.

Part 1. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.

19. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 5349-2:2001+A1:2015 Mechanical vibration ­

Guidelines for the measurement and assessment of human exposure to hand-transmitted

vibration. Part 2. Practical guidance for measurement at the workplace. London: British

Standards Institution.

20. British Standards Institution. BS EN 50144-2-6:2001 Safety of hand-held electric motor

operated tools. Particular requirements for hammers. London: British Standards

Institution.

21. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-1:2003 Hand-held motor-operated electric

tools. Safety. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.

22. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 Hand-held motor-operated electric

tools. Safety. Particular requirements for reciprocating saws (jig and sabre saws).

London: British Standards Institution.

23. British Standards Institution.BS EN ISO 20643:2005 Mechanical vibration - Hand-held

and hand-guided machinery - Principles for evaluation of vibration emission. London:

British Standards Institution.

24. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 Hand-held motor-operated electric

tools. Safety. Particular requirements for grinders, polishers and disk-type sanders.

London: British Standards Institution.

25. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 10517:2009 Powered hand-held hedge

trimmers. Safety. London: British Standards Institution.

26. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-1:2009 Hand-held motor-operated electric

tools. Safety. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.

27. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 Hand-held motor-

operated electric tools. Safety. Particular requirements for drills and impact drills.

London: British Standards Institution.

51

28. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 Hand-held motor-

operated electric tools. Safety. Particular requirements for hammers. London: British

Standards Institution.

29. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 Hand-held motor-operated electric

tools. Safety. Particular requirements for grinders, polishers and disk-type sanders.

London: British Standards Institution.

30. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 10517:2009 Powered hand-held hedge trimmers

– Safety. London: British Standards Institution.

31. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 Hand-held portable power tools ­

Test methods for evaluation of vibration emission. Part 9: Scaling hammers and needle

scalers. London: British Standards Institution.

32. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-1:2009+A11:2010 Hand-held motor-operated

electric tools. Safety. General requirements. London: British Standards Institution.

33. British Standards Institution. BS EN 60745-2-6:2010 Hand-held motor-operated electric

tools. Safety. Particular requirements for hammers. London: British Standards Institution.

34. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011 Hand-held portable power tools.

Test methods for evaluation of vibration emission. Percussive drills, hammers and

breakers London: British Standards Institution.

35. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011 Hand-held portable power tools.

Test methods for evaluation of vibration emission. Stone hammers. London: British

Standards Institution.

36. British Standards Institution. BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 Mechanical vibration-

Hand-held and hand-guided machinery- Principles for evaluation of vibration emission.

London: British Standards Institution.

37. British Standards Institution. BS EN 62841-1:2015 Electric motor-operated hand-held

tools and lawn and garden machinery - Safety. General requirements. London: British

Standards Institution.

38. Dong RG, McDowell TW, Welcome DE, Warren C, Schopper AW (2004) An evaluation

of the standardized chipping hammer test specified in ISO 8662-2. Ann Occup Hyg 2004

Jan:48(1), pp 39-49.

39. European Commission (1989). Council Directive 89/392/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the

approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery. Official Journal of

the European Communities, L 183, p.9-32.

40. European Commission (2002). Directive 2002/44/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 25 June 2002 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding

the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (sixteenth

individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) - Joint

Statement by the European Parliament and the Council. Official Journal of the European

Communities, L 177, p.13-20.

52

41. European Commission (2006). Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (recast).

Official Journal of the European Communities, L157, p.24-86.

42. Health and Safety Executive (2005). Hand-arm vibration. The Control of Vibration at

Work Regulations 2005. Guidance on the Regulations. HSE Books, L140. ISBN

0717661253.

43. Heaton R, Hewitt S and Yeomans E (2007) Correlation between vibration emission and

vibration during real use - Fastener driving tools. Research report RR625. HSE Books:

Sudbury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr625.pdf accessed 27/07/2020.

44. Heaton R and Hewitt S (2009) Evaluation of EN 60745 test codes: BS EN 60745-2­

3:2007 angle grinders. Research Report RR717. HSE Books: Sudbury.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr717.htm accessed 27/07/2020.

45. Heaton R (2009) Evaluation of EN 60745 series of test codes: BS EN 60745-2-11:2003

reciprocating saws. Research Report RR754. HSE Books: Sudbury.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr754.htm accessed 27/07/2020.

46. Heaton R and Hewitt S (2011a) Hand-arm vibration of horticultural machinery – Part 1.

Research report RR884 HSE Books: Sudbury.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr884.htm accessed 27/07/2020.

47. Heaton R and Hewitt S (2011b) Hand-arm vibration of horticultural machinery – Part 2.

Research report RR894 HSE Books: Sudbury.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr894.htm accessed 27/07/2020.

48. Hewitt S (1999) Comparison of EN ISO 8662 emission data with vibration in use ­

Chipping hammers and stone working tools. HSL report NV/99/04. Available from HSL

Buxton.

49. Hewitt S, Critchlow SG, Ward T and Smeatham D (2000a) Vibration emission of Impact

drills - Comparison of emission data with vibration in use. HSL report NV/00/09.

Available from HSE Buxton.

50. Hewitt S, Critchlow SG, Ward T and Smeatham D (2000b) Vibration emission of rock

drills and rotary hammers - Comparison of emission data with Vibration in use (ISO

8662-3). HSE report NV/00/10. Available from HSE Buxton.

51. Hewitt S, Critchlow SG, Ward T and Smeatham D (2000c) Vibration emission of

Grinders - Comparison of emission data with vibration in use. (ISO 8662-4). HSE report

NV/00/17. Available from HSE Buxton.

52. Hewitt S, Smeatham D, Hutt R and Mole M (2003) Correlation between vibration

emission and vibration during real use - Saws and files. HSE report NV/03/09. Available

from HSE Buxton.

53. Hewitt S, Heaton R, Shanks E and M Mole (2006) Correlation between vibration

emission and vibration during real use - Polishers and sanders. Research report RR590.

53

HSE Books: Sudbury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr590.pdf accessed

27/07/2020.

54. Hewitt S, Shanks E, Heaton R and Mole M (2006) Vibration emission and simulated real

use measurements on six road breakers.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2006/hsl0626.pdf accessed 27/07/2020.

55. Hewitt S and Heaton R (2007) Comparison of vibration measurements on cut-off saws

according to BS EN ISO 1454 and BS EN ISO 19432 and in-use measurements. HSL

report NV/07/07. Available from HSL Buxton.

56. Hewitt S, Shanks E, Heaton R and Mole M (2010) Evaluation of EN 60745 test codes:

BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 concerning the vibration of hand-held electric

hammers. Research Report RR868. HSE Books: Sudbury.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr868.htm accessed 27/07/2020.

57. Hewitt S, Mole M and Hunwin G (2012) The effectiveness of BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009

concerning the vibration emission of scaling hammers and needle scalers. Research

Report RR967. HSE Books: Sudbury. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr967.htm

accessed 27/07/2020.

58. Hewitt S, Mole M and Hunwin G (2015) The effectiveness of BS EN ISO 28927-10:2011

concerning the vibration emission of percussive drills, hammers and breakers. In press.

59. Hewitt S, Mole M and Hunwin G (2015) The effectiveness of BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011

concerning the vibration emission of stone hammers. In press.

60. Hutt R, Smeatham D, Hewitt S and Mole M (2003) Correlation between vibration

emission and vibration during real use - Die grinders. HSL report NV/03/10. Available

from HSL Buxton.

61. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 5349:1986 Mechanical vibration.

Guidelines for the measurement and the assessment of human exposure to hand-

transmitted vibration.

62. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 7916:1989 Forestry machinery ­

Portable brush-saws - Measurement of hand-transmitted vibration.

63. International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO 8662-11:1999 Hand-held portable

power tools - Measurement of vibrations at the handle - Part 11: Fastener driving tools.

64. Kennedy S (1989) Transducer mounting methods. Part 2: An investigation of mounting

methods used for on-site measurements. HSL report IR/L/NV/89/12. Available from HSL

Buxton.

65. McDowell TW, Dong RG, Xu X, Welcome DE and Warren C (2008) An evaluation of

iImpact wrench vibration emissions and test methods. Ann Occup Hyg, Vol 52, No.2, pp

125-138.

66. McDowell TW, Warren C, Welcome DE and Dong RG (2012) Laboratory and field

measurements and evaluations of vibration at the handles of riveting hammers. Ann

Occup Hyg Vol 56 No.8. pp 911-924

54

67. Pitts P (2001) Hand arm vibration exposure of brush cutter operators HSL report

NV/01/16. Available from HSL Buxton.

68. Pitts P and Brereton P (2016) “The Development and use of tools to support workplace hand-arm vibration exposure evaluation” Acoustics Australia online.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40857-016-0043-x accessed 27/07/2020.

69. Rimmel AN, Notini L, Mansfield NJ, Edwards DJ (2007) Variation between

manufacturer’s declared vibration emission values and those measured under simulated

workplace conditions for a range of hand-held power tools typically found in the

construction industry. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38 (9-10), pp 661­

675.

70. Shanks E (2006) Correlation between vibration emission and real world exposure ­

Nibblers and shears. Research report RR576 HSE Books: Sudbury.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr576.pdf accessed 27/07/2020.

71. Shanks E, Hewitt S, Heaton R and Mole M (2011) Evaluation of EN 60745 test codes:

BS EN 60745-2-1 2003 (inc. amendment no. 1) Particular requirements for drills and

impact drills; vibration emission. Research Report RR879. HSE Books: Sudbury.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrhtm/rr879.htm accessed 27/07/2020.

72. Smeatham D, Hewitt S and Mole M (2001) Vibration emission of rammers - Comparison

of emission data with vibration in use. HSL report NV/01/24. Available from HSL

Buxton.

73. Smeatham D, Hewitt S, Hutt R and Mole M (2003) Correlation between vibration

emission and vibration during real use - Impact wrenches. HSL report NV/03/17.

Available from HSL Buxton.

74. Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992. The Stationery Office, S.I. 1992/3073.

75. Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008. The Stationery Office, S.I. 2008/1597.

ISBN 9780110818924.

76. Ward T (1996) Correlation between vibration emission and vibration during use –

grinders. HSL report NV/96/04. Available as HSL report NV/00/17 in anonymised form.

77. Ward T (1998) Vibration emission of pavement breakers and pick hammers - Comparison

of ISO 8662-5 emission data with real use vibration. HSL report NV/98/3. Available from

HSL Buxton.

55

ANNEX A

INDIVIDUAL RESULTS FOR EACH TOOL CATEGORY

In the Figures presented in this Annex, a triangle represents the HSL measured emission value

for a tool, a circle represents the manufacturer’s declared emission value for the same tool and a

cross represents the upper quartile of in-use data as measured by HSL. Attention is also drawn

to the varying maxima on the y-axes in the figures. The axes differ to optimise the display of the

data for each tool type.

Angle grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-4:1995.................................................................................. 48

Demolition hammers - BS EN 28662-5:1995 ............................................................................. 48

Road breakers - BS EN 28662-5:1995........................................................................................ 49

Chipping hammers - BS EN 28662-2:1995 ................................................................................ 49

Rock drills and rotary hammers - BS EN 28662-3:1995 ............................................................ 50

Impact drills - BS EN ISO 8662-6:1995 ..................................................................................... 50

Brush cutters – ISO 7916:1989 ................................................................................................... 51

Rammers - BS EN ISO 8662-9:1996 and BS EN 50144-2-6:1997 ............................................ 51

Die grinders - BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997.................................................................................... 52

Impact wrenches - BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 .............................................................................. 52

Saws and files - BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 ................................................................................ 53

Sanders and Polishers - BS EN ISO 8662-8:1997, BS EN 60745-2-4:2003............................... 53

Nibblers and shears - BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998, BS EN ISO 50144-2-8:1996......................... 54

Breakers - BS EN ISO 8662-5:1995 ........................................................................................... 54

Cut-off saws – BS EN ISO 1454................................................................................................. 55

Fastener driving tools – ISO 8662-11:1999 ................................................................................ 55

Angle grinders - BS EN 60745-2-3:2007.................................................................................... 56

Reciprocating saws - BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 .......................................................................... 56

Hammers - BS EN 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009............................................................................ 57

Lawn mowers - BS EN 836:1997 ............................................................................................... 57

Hedge trimmers - BS EN ISO 10517:2009................................................................................. 58

Drills – BS EN ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 .......................................................................... 58

Scaling hammers and needle scalers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009.............................................. 59

Chisel scalers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 ................................................................................. 59

Scabblers - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009........................................................................................ 60

Percussive drills, hammers and breakers - BS EN ISO 28927-10:2009 ..................................... 60

Stone hammers - BS EN ISO 28927-11:2011............................................................................. 61

56

ANGLE GRINDERS - BS E N ISO 8662-4:1995 [5]

DEMOLITION HAMMERS - BS EN 28662-5:1995 [6]

57

ROAD BREAKERS - BS E N 28662-5:1995 [6]

CHIPPING HAMMERS - BS E N 28662-2:1995 [3]

58

ROCK DRILLS AND ROTARY H AMMERS - BS EN 28662-3:1995 [4]

IMPACT DRILLS - BS E N ISO 8662-6:1995 [7]

59

BRUSH CUTTERS – ISO 7916:1989 [62]

RAMMERS - BS E N ISO 8662-9:1996 [9]

60

DIE G RINDERS - BS EN ISO 8662-13:1997 [15]

IMPACT WRENCHES - BS EN ISO 8662-7:1997 [12]

61

SAWS AND FILES - BS EN ISO 8662-12:1997 [14]

SANDERS A ND POLISHERS - BS E N ISO 8662-8:1997 [13]

62

NIBBLERS AND SHEARS - BS EN ISO 8662-10:1998 [17]

BREAKERS - BS E N ISO 8662-5:1995 [6]

63

CUT OFF SAWS – BS EN ISO 1454:1997 [11]

FASTENER DRIVING TOOLS – ISO 8662-11:1999 [63]

64

ANGLE GRINDERS - BS EN 60745-2-3:2007 [24]

RECIPROCATING SAWS - BS EN 60745-2-11:2003 [22]

65

HAMMERS - BS E N 60745-2-6:2003+A2:2009 [28]

LAWN MOWERS - BS EN 836:1997 [10]

66

HEDGE TRIMMERS - BS E N ISO 10517:2009 [25]

DRILLS – BS E N ISO 60745-2-1:2003+A1:2009 [27]

67

SCALING HAMMERS AND NEEDLE SCALERS - BS EN ISO 28927-9:2009 [31]

68

PERCUSSIVE DRILLS, HAMMERS & BREAKERS – BS E N ISO 28927-10:2011 [34]

69

STONE HAMMERS – BS E N ISO 28927-11:2011 [35]

70

ANNEX B

EMISSION DATA AS AN INDICATOR OF REAL USE RISK Note that the number of machines tested for each tool category is included after the tool

description and report date.

Figure B.1 Percentage of emission data reflecting upper quartile of field (in-use) data based on a emission values

71

Figure B.2 Percentage of emission data reflecting upper quartile of field data (in-use) based on a+K emission values

72

ANNEX C

EMISSION VALUES AS INDICATORS OF RISK - RATIO GRAPHS

In Figures C1a to C5b, a ratio of less than 1 indicates that the emission value is lower than the

upper quartile of the vibration in-use. A ratio of greater than 1 indicates that the emission value

exceeds the upper quartile of vibration when in-use. BS EN ISO 20643:2008+A1:2012 specifies

that new test codes should be developed to produce vibration emission values, which reflect the

upper quartile of in-use values. Therefore the upper quartile of in-use vibration can be seen as

the target value for the measured a emission to achieve. The target is however affected by the

statistical confidence in the upper quartile and the emission value. To take account of these

sources of variability, the a emission values have an associated K value and the upper quartiles

have an associated 95% confidence interval. The K value is indicated on the graph by an error

bar.

73

Figure C1a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers

74

Figure C1b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers

Note: In Figures C1a and C1b, the data are displayed in ascending order of emission value on

the horizontal axis. The a emission value is the figure in brackets after the tool description.

Figure C2a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for percussive hammers and stone hammers

75

Figure C2b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for percussive hammers and stone hammers

76

Figure C3a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers with rotary action

Figure C3b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for hammers with rotary action

77

Figure C4a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use for reciprocating saws, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers and impact drills

Figure C4b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use for reciprocating saws, lawn mowers, hedge trimmers and impact drills

78

Figure C5a Ratio of manufacturers’ a emission to upper quartile in-use data for needle scalers, chisel scalers and scabblers

Figure C5b Ratio of HSL a emission to upper quartile in-use data for needle scalers, chisel scalers and scabblers

79

80

4

Published by the Health & Safety Executive 10/20

5

Standard test codes for the declaration of vibration emission: a review of research carried out by the Health and Safety Executive

Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) is a painful and disabling disorder of the blood vessels, nerves and joints, caused by exposure to hand transmitted vibration, often from using power tools. HAVS is preventable, but once damage is done, it is irreversible.

The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008 require manufacturers to minimise machinery vibration risk and declare vibration emission. British standard test codes can be used for this declaration. Manufacturers must provide information to enable risk from vibration (after minimisation by the manufacturer) to be assessed and effectively managed; they should draw attention to any gap between the risk indicated by the declared vibration emission and the likely actual risk during use.

This report gives an overview of HSE research carried out up to 2013 to investigate vibration emission information from standard test codes for 31 different power tool categories.

Results showed that vibration emission data measured according to the latest test codes are useful for identifying low or high vibration power tools in some, but not all, cases. Typically, in-use vibration is under-estimated, rendering the data unsuitable for risk assessment.

Employers and users of power tools should seek corroboration of data they intend to use for risk assessment to assure the data are reliable for estimating hand-arm vibration exposures. ion exposures. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy.

RR1162

www.hse.gov.uk